Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
Overview
Pre-publication peer review has been part of science for a long time. Philosophical Transactions, the first peer-reviewed journal, published its first
paper in 1665 but peer review may be even older still. There are records of physicians in the Arab world reviewing the effectiveness of each other’s
treatments as early as the 9th century.
Peer review is a critical part of the modern scientific process. For science to progress, research methods and findings need to be closely
examined and verified, and from them a decision on the best direction for future research is made. After a study has gone through peer review and is
accepted for publication, scientists and the public can be confident that the study has met certain standards, and that the results can be trusted.
After an editor receives a manuscript, their first step is to check that the manuscript meets the journal’s rules for content and format. If it does, then
the editor moves to the next step, which is peer review. The editor will send the manuscript to two or more experts in the field to get their opinion. The
experts – called peer reviewers – will then prepare a report that assesses the manuscript, and return it to the editor. After reading the peer reviewer's
report, the editor will decide to do one of three things: reject the manuscript, accept the manuscript, or ask the authors to revise and resubmit the
manuscript after responding to the peer reviewers’ feedback. If the authors resubmit the manuscript, editors will sometimes ask the same peer
reviewers to look over the manuscript again to see if their concerns have been addressed. This is called re-review.
Some of the problems that peer reviewers may find in a manuscript include errors in the study’s methods or analysis that raise questions about the
findings, or sections that need clearer explanations so that the manuscript is easily understood. From a journal editor’s point of view, comments on
the importance and novelty of a manuscript, and if it will interest the journal’s audience, are particularly useful in helping them to decide which
manuscripts to publish.
The type of peer review used by a journal should be clearly stated in the invitation to review letter you receive and policy pages on the journal
website. If, after checking the journal website, you are unsure of the type of peer review used or would like clarification on the journal’s policy you
should contact the journal’s editors.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Back│Next
www.springer.com
If you are not sure if you have a conflict of interest, discuss your circumstances with the editor.
Along with avoiding a conflict of interest, there are several other ethical guidelines to keep in mind as you review the manuscript. Manuscripts under
review are highly confidential, so you should not discuss the manuscript – or even mention its existence – to others. One exception is if you would
like to consult with a colleague about your review; in this case, you will need to ask the editor’s permission. It is normally okay to ask one of your
students or postdocs to help with the review. However, you should let the editor know that you are being helped, and tell your assistant about the
need for confidentiality. In some cases case, when the journal operates an open peer review policy they will allow the student or postdoc to co-sign
the report with you should they wish.
It is very unethical to use information in the manuscript to make business decisions, such as buying or selling stock. Also, you should never plagiarize
the content or ideas in the manuscript.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Evaluating manuscripts
When you first receive the manuscript it is recommended that you read it through once and focus on the wider context of the research.
Ask questions such as:
What research question(s) do the authors address? Do they make a good argument for why a question is important?
What methods do the authors use to answer the question? Are the methods the most current available or is there a newer more powerful method
available? Does their overall strategy seem like a good one, or are there major problems with their methods? Are there other experiments that would
greatly improve the quality of the manuscript? If so, are they necessary to make the work publishable? Would any different data help confirm the
presented results and strengthen the paper?
Were the results analyzed and interpreted correctly? Does the evidence support the authors’ conclusions?
Will the results advance your field in some way? If so, how much? Does the importance of the advance match the standards of the journal?
Will other researchers be interested in reading the study? If so, what types of researchers? Do they match the journal’s audience? Is there an
alternative readership that the paper would be more suitable for? For example, a study about renal disease in children might be suitable for either a
pediatrics-centric journal or one that is targeted at nephrologists.
Does the manuscript fit together well? Does it clearly describe what was done, why it was done, and what the results mean?
Is the manuscript written well and easy to read? If the manuscript has many mistakes, you can suggest that the authors have it checked by a native
English speaker. If the language quality is so poor that it is difficult to understand, you can ask that the manuscript be corrected before you review it.
After your first reading, write one or two paragraphs summarizing what the manuscript is about and how it adds to current knowledge in your field.
Mention the strengths of the manuscript, but also any problems that make you believe it should not be published, or that would need to be corrected
to make it publishable. These summary paragraphs are the start of your review, and they will demonstrate to the editor and authors that you have
read the manuscript carefully. They will also help the editor, who may not be a specialist in this particular field, understand the wider context of the
research. Finally, these paragraphs will highlight the manuscript’s main messages that will be taken away by readers.
You can then proceed in evaluating the individual sections of the paper.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Introduction
Like the title and abstract, the Introduction tells the reader what the manuscript will be about. However, unlike the abstract, the Introduction gives the
background for the research question.
While reviewing the Introduction, ask the following questions:
Does it explain the background well enough that researchers outside your specialty can understand it?
Does it accurately describe current knowledge related to the research question?
Does the Introduction contain unnecessary information? Can it be made more concise?
Are the reasons for performing the study clear?
Are the aims of the study clearly defined and consistent with the rest of the manuscript?
Have the authors missed any key references that would be important for a reader to access? Make suggestions for additional, relevant references if
necessary.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Statistics
Most scientific manuscripts include statistical analysis, and a study’s conclusions depend on the results of these analyses. If the data are analyzed or
reported incorrectly, the manuscript will mislead readers. Therefore, as a scientist, and as a peer reviewer, it is important to have a solid
understanding of statistics, and to carefully examine the statistical methods and reporting in manuscripts you review. If you do not feel qualified to
fully evaluate the statistics, tell the editor this in your comments so that they know to ask someone else to review them.
Some questions to ask as you review statistical analyses and results are:
Was the sample size appropriate and/or justified? Did the authors perform a power analysis as part of their study design?
Did the data meet the assumptions of the tests used? (e.g., many statistical tests can only be used for data with a normal distribution. Data such as
proportions or counts of the number of events are generally not normally distributed and have to be either transformed or, preferably, analyzed with
statistical models suitable for these data types). Were the tests used appropriate?
Are the individual data points statistically independent? If there were repeated measurements (for instance, multiple measurements on the same
patient), have appropriate statistical models been used?
Have potential sources of bias (e.g. confounding variables) been considered and accounted for in the analysis?
When percentages are presented, are the numerator and denominator clear? E.g., “Of the 500 bee colonies, 200 (40%) were affected by the virus,”
or, “Forty percent (200/500) of the bee colonies were affected by the virus.”
Are p-values reported where appropriate? Generally, a p-value should accompany all statistical comparisons mentioned in the text, figures and
tables. The actual p-value should be stated (e.g. p = 0.049 and p = 0.0021 rather than p ‹ 0.05 or p ‹ 0.01). However, it is acceptable to state p ‹
0.0001 if the value is below this threshold. The Statistical Analysis section should also state the threshold for accepting significance, such as "Values
of P ‹ 0.05 were considered statistically significant".
Common problems with methods and statistics
There are a number of common problems you might consider when reviewing the methods and statistical analysis of a study. These include:
Replication that is absent or inadequate. Replication is essential in order to minimize sampling error. If a study does not have the right number of
replicates, general inferences cannot be made from it and the power of statistical analyses done on the data would be too low. The result of low
statistical power is that real differences or treatment effect cannot be detected.
Confounding. The problem of confounding means that differences due to experimental treatments cannot be separated from other factors that might
be causing the observed difference. Confounding can be avoided by careful experimental design, such as proper replication, controls and
randomization.
Poor sampling methods. In observational studies, random sampling is needed to make sure that the experimental sample is representative of the
whole population. If random sampling has not been used, check that the authors justify their sampling methods.
Lack of randomization. In experimental studies, “treatments” must be randomly allocated to experimental units (or vice versa), to make sure that the
groups being compared are similar and factors that could confound interpretation of treatment effects are minimized.
Pseudoreplication. The sample size should reflect the number of different times that the effect of interest was independently tested. For instance, if
there are repeated measurements on the same set of subjects, as might occur when measuring individuals repeatedly over a period of time,
individual data points are not independent. In these cases, averages per individual, or appropriate statistical models that account for repeated
measures (e.g. mixed effects models), should be used to analyze the data. If the statistics are not explained, pseudoreplication can often be spotted
by looking at the degrees of freedom (essentially, the number of independent pieces of information) of the statistical tests.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Back│Next
www.springer.com
References
Pay attention to how the authors use references as you review the rest of the manuscript.
Some issues to watch for include:
Are there places where the authors need to cite a reference, but haven’t? (In general, citations are needed for all facts except those that are well-
established, common knowledge; that come from the current study; or that are clearly phrased as the authors’ own hypothesis.)
Do the authors cite all the most relevant previous studies and explain how they relate to the current results? If not, note which references are missing.
Are the cited studies recent enough to represent current knowledge on the topic?
Do the authors cite the work of a variety of research groups? This is preferable to mainly citing papers from one or two research groups, especially if
one of the most cited groups is one the authors belong to (although it is not always possible in very small fields of study).
Do the authors cite many review articles? It is better to cite the original studies.
Are all of the citations helpful to the reader? Note any places where the authors seem to be reviewing literature simply to show the depth of their
knowledge, or to increase citations of their own previous work.
Do the authors cite findings that contradict their own (where they exist), as well as those that support their claims? It is important that the authors
provide a well balanced view of previously published work.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
Back│Next
www.springer.com
TIP: Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major
improvements are made, or to reject the paper.
Keep in mind that the authors – and even the editor – may not be native English speakers. Read over your comments after you finish writing them to
check that you’ve used clear, simple wording, and that the reasons for your proposed changes are clear.
Back│Next
www.springer.com
If the authors revise and resubmit the manuscript after review, the editor will often review the changes to decide if the reviewer comments have been
fully addressed.
Sometimes, however, the editor will send the manuscript back to the original reviewers to get their feedback about the acceptability of the revised
manuscript.
If this happens, focus on if the authors have resolved the problems you pointed out in your first review.
Try to avoid raising new problems unless they have to do with the author’s revisions. For example, if you asked the authors to explain their methods
more clearly, and can now see problems with the experimental design that were not apparent before, it is still appropriate to mention them.
If the authors decided not to follow one or more of your suggestions, and explained why in their response letter, evaluate their reasons fairly and
decide if you agree with their decision.
If your suggestion arose from a misunderstanding of the manuscript, check to see if the authors have revised the relevant section to make it clearer
or if they have explained a particular problem as a limitation of the study. Be fair.
If you still feel strongly that the manuscript should not be published because of a problem that has not been addressed, you should indicate this to the
editor and explain why a particular change or addition is necessary.
Download the free 'How to Peer Review: Easy Guide' >>Download here
Back│Next